Join Us

Blog

KmarekaSeptember 9, 2007"I am in a heterosexual marriage of twenty-five years, and in all those years 'gay marriage' was never to blame for any of our arguments. I think I speak for a lot of married couples when I say that there are issues closer to home we can fight about, if we are so inclined. Marriage is precious, the right to marry is a right that I value, and I would not deny equal rights to people who love someone of their own sex. It's easy to take marriage for granted, unless you are barred from it." [link]

The Philadelphia InquirerSeptember 7, 2007This case once again shows that same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships are not entitled to the benefits that non-gay married couples enjoy. The benefit in question is unemployment compensation, which a Pennsylvania woman was denied after she quit her job last year to follow her partner of eight years to Florida. The reason for the denial: She is not married. Her rebuttal: She didn't have that option. [Link]

Pride SourceSeptember 6, 2007IA Judge Hanson spelled out clearly that there are not shades of equality under the constitution. Either you are equal, or you are not. The institution of marriage, Hanson wrote, is "so woven into the fabric of daily life and so determinative of legal rights and status" that denial of a marriage license "amounts to a badge of inferiority" imposed on gay couples and their children. [Link]

Equality CaliforniaSeptember 7, 2007For the second time in two years, the California Legislature has passed legislation that would grant same-sex couples the ability to marry. With a 22-15 vote, the Senate on September 7 approved AB 43, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, and sponsored by Equality California. [link]

Daily KosSeptember 4, 2007"Whatever our national candidates do or don't do, we progressives need to take an integrated approach to social justice. We need to be unafraid and unashamed of our political views (and hash them out and debate them here if we must.) If our politicians cannot see this, that should not prevent us from nurturing a new political movement and investing in fresh leaders who do." [Link]

Subject to Complete DefeasanceSeptember 3, 2007In this case, the judge noted that U.S. Supreme Court and Iowa Supreme Court have deemed marriage a fundamental right. On that basis he applied strict scrutiny and shot down the law because the purported state interests — (1) promoting procreation, (2) promoting child-rearing in a mother-father setting, (3) promoting stability in opposite-sex relationships, (4) conserving public and private resources, and (5) "promoting the concept or integrity of traditional marriage" — are not compelling. In addition, the means of promoting those interest, namely a total ban on same-sex marriages, isn't narrowly tailored to produce those results. For instance, the defense never managed to articulate exactly how precluding gays from marrying promotes procreation. [Link]

Mason City Globe GazetteSeptember 2, 2007Hanson ruled that a law designed to marginalize a certain group of citizens has no place on the books. The Iowa Supreme Court may overrule him, but that message isn't going away. Fairness still means something, even in a country painted in dark shades of red and blue. Like it or not, history is on a long and arduous but constant arc toward greater acceptance and tolerance. You can slow it down, but you can't stop it. [Link]

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel August 31, 2007I believe in the sanctity of marriage; in fact, it's a tradition I aspire to emulate. For me, marriage is more than just a word; it's the embodiment of an idea to which I am deeply loyal. Marriage sanctifies the love and commitment that form the basis of a strong, morally upright family. "Civil union," by contrast, is a sterile and relatively meaningless term. Those who support civil unions and oppose gay marriage, including nearly all of the Democratic presidential candidates, fail to understand that nobody views marriage in terms of government benefits. [link]

Gay City NewsAugust 30, 2007This article provides a good summary of the Iowa decision. From a legal perspective, the critical portion of the opinion is the judge's explanation of why the record compels the conclusion that the state's anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. He accepts the argument that the relevant issue under the state Constitution from a due process perspective is not whether 'gay marriage' is a fundamental right, but rather whether same-sex couples have the right to marry, since the right to marry is in itself a fundamental right. [Link]

Lambda LegalAugust 30, 2007In a powerful, closely reasoned 63-pp. decision, an Iowa trial court struck down the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The court found that the denial of marriage harms couples and their kids, while helping no one and serving no legitimate government interest. The ruling is a victory for families and fairness in America's heartland. [link] Read the decision here.